Nolan v. Brawley, 30835
| Decision Date | 06 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 30835,30835 |
| Parties | Alan T. NOLAN, Donald G. Bell, Vance M. Waggoner, Robert Y. Keegan, Frank E. Tolbert, as Members of the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, Petitioners, v. George R. BRAWLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Theodore Sendak, Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
Abe Latker, Fort Wayne, for respondent.
This is an original disciplinary action instituted by the filing of an information for the revocation or suspension of admission to practice law by members of the Disciplinary Commission, appointed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, pursuant to Rule 3--21 of said court.
On September 8, 1965 the Attorney General of Indiana, pursuant to the written request of the Disciplinary Commission filed Information in six rhetorical paragraphs for the Revocation or Suspension of Admission to Practice Law against George R. Brawley.
The respondent, on September 20, 1965, submitted his Answer to Information for the Revocation or Suspension of Admission to Practice Law, denying the allegations contained in Rhetorical Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Information, and for an affirmative answer in four paragraphs stated facts in mitigation of the allegations of the Information, and in the fifth paragraph denied that he had resigned, that his resignation was for due cause and not in violation of the law as follows:
After having moved to dismiss rhetorical paragraphs 1 through 4, which motion was granted by the commissioner, the Attorney General proceeded against the respondent solely on the basis of his being removed from the roll of attorneys in Wisconsin for due cause. By reason of such removal, the respondent is not a fit and proper person to practice law in Indiana, and his misconduct in Wisconsin is not to be condoned in Indiana and would form the basis for disciplinary action in Indiana.
The respondent in his exceptions to the Findings of Fact alleges the findings were contrary to the evidence and the findings did not contain all the facts in evidence in this matter.
A commissioner was appointed to hear and report the evidence and make findings of fact. Said hearing was held before the commissioner. The respondent and his attorney, pursuant to the direction of this court, were given fifteen (15) days from the date of the filing of the Findings of Fact to file with this court exceptions. Exceptions were duly filed by respondent and the petitioners.
It was found that respondent George R. Brawley was duly admitted to practice law in the State of Indiana in the year 1935; the said respondent was duly admitted to practice law in the State of Wisconsin on July 10, 1939. In the year 1957 complaints were filed under the procedures and rules of the State of Wisconsin which alleged professional misconduct by George R. Brawley in the State of Wisconsin.
Said Findings of Fact were made as follows:
George R. Brawley is an attorney at law licensed and practicing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with his residence in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, which county is within the jurisdiction of this Committee.
During the months of October and November of 1956 Sanford Carter, a real estate broker in the City of Milwaukee, County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin, paid over to said George R. Brawley $1,500 to be applied as the down payment on a property allegedly owned or about to be acquired by an undisclosed client of said George R. Brawley.
Said George R. Brawley submitted a check dated June 29, 1957 and drawn on his account at the Teutonia Bank of Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Sanford Carter, broker and William Clanton, principal in repayment of said $1,500. Said check was not honored by the bank because there were insufficient funds in the account. Said $1,500 has been used by George R. Brawley for personal purposes.
During the year 1953 said George R. Brawley was retained by Sylvester Jenkins and Estella Jenkins. During said year George R. Brawley received the sum of $2,250, which sum belonged to Sylvester and Estella Jenkins for the sale of real estate in the City and County of Milwaukee. Said sum of $2,250 has not been paid to Sylvester and Estella Jenkins except for the sum of $450 and that said George R. Brawley admits that he has taken said sum of money which belongs to Sylvester and Estella Jenkins and converted it to his own use.
During the year 1954 George R. Brawley was retained by Cecile Gonzalez (Mrs. William James Suber) and that $278.00 was paid to said George R. Brawley presumably to cover costs for a sheriff's bond. That said George R. Brawley did not use said sum for the purpose for which it was given and has converted the same to his own use.
By the rendering of the Findings to the State Bar in Wisconsin, the conclusions were as follows:
Each act of converting funds belonging to clients as outlined above was professional misconduct under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
For such acts of professional misconduct the Committee is of the opinion that the facts warrant a complaint to the State Bar Commissioners.
Thereafter the following order was made:
It is, therefore, ordered by the Committee that copies of this report together with copies of the complaints, shall be mailed to the Secretary of the State Bar Commissioners for further proceedings of the State Bar Commissioners.
The commissioner found that while said disbarment proceedings were pending George R. Brawley filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin which reads as follows:
'STATE OF WISCONSIN _ _ IN SUPREME COURT
To the SUPREME COURT of the State of Wisconsin and the Justices of said Court:
The petition of GEORGE R. BRAWLEY respectfully represents and shows to the court:
That he was duly admitted and licensed to practice as an attorney of this court, and of other courts of record in the State of Wisconsin, on the 10th day of July, 1939, and that his name as such attorney is upon the rolls of this court; that since his admission as attorney aforesaid, he has practiced law in the city of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; that your petitioner has discontinued the practice of law and desires that his said license to practice law, as aforesaid, be revoked and annulled for due cause and that his name as such attorney be stricken from the rolls of this court. WHEREFORE, your petitioner petitions this Honorable Court that an order be entered whereby his said license to practice law as an attorney of this court and of other courts of record in this state, be revoked and annulled for due cause and that his name be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Haggenjos v. State
-
Barnes v. Clayton
...standards of his profession as provided by law, by oath of office and the code of ethics of the legal profession. Nolan v. Brawley (1969), 251 Ind. 697, 244 N.E.2d 918, 922, reh'g denied. We divine a similar meaning in the context of a police commissioner. While a public officer who has bee......
-
Weaver, Matter of, 1078S230
...not been subsequently reinstated. Disbarment in another state can be the basis for disbarment proceedings in Indiana. Nolan v. Brawley (1969), 251 Ind. 697, 244 N.E.2d 918. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 2(b) incorporates this concept and provides: (b) If an attorney admitted to ......